New Hampshire Supreme Court: Gay Sex Not Adultery (Dumbing down deviancy!)

Wnne31, The Associated Press. ^ | November 7, 2003 | AP

[carlo3b]

 
Supreme Court: Gay Sex Not Adultery

Decision Comes In Divorce Appeal

POSTED: 11:55 a.m. EST November 7, 2003
CONCORD, N.H. -- If a married woman has sex with another woman, is that adultery? The New Hampshire Supreme Court says no.

The court was asked to review a divorce case in which a husband accused his wife of adultery after she had a sexual relationship with another woman. Any finding that one spouse is at fault in the break-up of a marriage can change how the court divides the couple's property.

Robin Mayer, of Brownsville, Vt., was named in the divorce proceedings of a Hanover couple. She appealed the case to the Supreme Court, arguing that gay sex doesn't qualify as adultery under the state's divorce law.

In a 3-2 ruling Friday, the court agreed.

The majority determined that the definition of adultery requires sexual intercourse. The judges who disagreed said adultery should be defined more broadly to include other extramarital sexual activity.

[SoothingDave]

Our courts find the wildest interpretation of words, and phrases, to fit their agendas, so why can't they ever seem to find commonsense as it applies to restraint of ones actions..

Is your goal a society of laws or one where we just happened to win this round of lawyerball?

The statute needs to be changed. The judges did their job.

SD

[carlo3b]

Words have meanings, carlo. You need to deal with reality.

AH.. you mean like a word "privacy" means, Mother's can Murder their babies, I think I am getting it.. fugheddaboutit!

[joansey2]

I suppose it's time for the courts to dig in and further define "adultery" to include any and all forms of sexual contact with someone other than your spouse (oral forms as well as sodomy). I think that's very clear to most laymen. It may be embarrassing and messy, but getting into these details would make this kind of silly loophole less likely to occur.
I don't think is a "damn those liberals" type of issue.

As an aside: I don’t understand the uproar over “gay” priests. I surround gay with rabbit ears only to show its irrelevance. Priests are supposed to be sexless, right? Those celibacy vows really level the field between gay and straight priests, do they not? The fact that such a small percentage of pedophiles are homosexual really would cause me to trust a priest who had once been homosexual (before taking his vows) more than the average priest.

[antiRepublicrat]

PLEASEEEEEEEEEEEee! Thats is the nitwit thinking and the reason we find ourselves in this mess.. Geeze!

I've read the law, and it's very poor. Most other states clearly define in the beginning any terms used in the law, but their laws don't. The judges appear to have read the law and followed it strictly, using dictionary definition. The legislature is at fault here. Other legislatures should look at this situation and amend their laws to cover such loopholes that may exist.

For example, NH laws and possibly others define adultery as sexual intercourse. A better definition would be sexual or intimate relations, which would have had this girl nailed for adultery. I just checked my state laws and they define adultry as man and woman. Such a ruling could happen here, too if the judges practice conservative judicial activism.

[antiRepublicrat]

I just hope the court doesn't turn around and count the husband getting reamed by the court as adultery. ;-)

They're divorced. I think that's covered under the sodomy statutes, but it can't be enforced now. Maybe under the rape statutes?

[carlo3b]

DAVE, I think we should win some of these stupid fights.. You obviously are a strict interpretation kind of guy, well my friend so am I, but these losers are changing the friggin rules to suit their own agenda every time we turn around.
Maybe your agree with what the courts are doing.. I'll let you be your own judge what you think. At least I am saying exactly what I think!

[Belial]

Since then with the pro gay laws passed by the legislators, the pro gay decisions by the courts, the Gay Bishop and other sanctioned pro gay behavior, we now understand that this has been in the works for a long time.

Wow, they managed to keep the grand gay conspiracy a secret from you that long, Sherlock?

[af_vet_1981]

Yep, Scalia was right. The only solution is the impeachment and removal (you can talk me into trials later) of some judges.

[laredo44]

AH.. you mean like a word "privacy" means, Mother's can Murder their babies,

Most Americans don't believe that a fetus is a baby or an abortion is murder. Some Americans believe capital punishment is murder. Some Americans believe our soldiers in Iraq committed murder. Yup, that's reality.

[SoothingDave]

I suppose it's time for the courts to dig in and further define "adultery" to include any and all forms of sexual contact with someone other than your spouse (oral forms as well as sodomy).

From your other comments I can't tell if you are being facetious or not. So my apologies if you are.

It is, rather, time for the legislature to dig in and define things. That is what legislatures are for. To write law. If a definition needs changed, that is who should do it.

SD

[Belial]

And yet in every other aspect the sodomites want the same acknowledgments as heterosexual couples

It is a strange ruling. I don't see know many married couples that would consider it anything but adultery...homosexual adultery would probably make it even more of a shock. Less threatening for men if lesbianism was involved, of course.

[scripter]

Thanks for the ping(s).

This is just incredible - I'll have to take a closer look at the article.

[SoothingDave]

DAVE, I think we should win some of these stupid fights.. You obviously are a strict interpretation kind of guy, well my friend so am I, but these losers are changing the friggin rules to suit their own agenda every time we turn around.

If we become them, and then eventually "win," then the enemey will be us.

SD

[Mike Darancette]

Sodomy<>Sex?

[carlo3b]

The judges appear to have read the law and followed it strictly, using dictionary definition.

My point exactly.. The judges could just as easily taken a wide birth in interrupting this case, however once again the secularist judges decided not to. When it came to the Texas Gay case another court chose to find hidden meanings of words that didn't exist.. Save it friend.. you are part of the problem, nowhere close to a solution.

[scripter]

There you go, bringing logic into the discussion.

[ladyinred]

You said it all Carlo!
My God, this is just incredible!

[carlo3b]

You see it your way, I see it clearly my way... Soothe yourself Dave.. :)

[carlo3b]

Sodomy<>Sex?

SUCK<>SEX? sure why not, it always was sex before the Clinton generation!

[Vinnie]

Words do have meaning.

I'm waiting for a man , or woman, to be brought up before a judge for 'doing' his/her german sheperd and use the 'sexual preference' defense.
It is bound to happen.